“Judges and lawyers are not automatons – Senior counsel Rana Mukherjee

Rana Mukherjee was designated Senior Advocate by the Supreme Court lastmonth. .A first generation lawyer, Mukherjee did his law from Kolkata and started his practice in 1989. .In this interview with Bar & Bench, he talks about the Calcutta Bar, his decision to not take the Advocate on Record exam, why the 365 day work policy will be a disaster and his views on various other legal issues. .Bar & Bench: Why did you take up law?.Rana Mukherjee: I was pursuing commerce at St. Xavier’s college. There was a very interesting professor in the college who used to teach us Mercantile law. His got me interested in law. Despite coming from a non-legal background, I realised that there was something in law which I liked and I developed an interest in law. I then approached the professor for his advice on whether I should pursue a career in law. He said, “Go ahead”; and that is how I joined law. I graduated from the Calcutta University and started my practice in the Calcutta High Court..Bar & Bench: Could you talk a bit about the Bar in Calcutta? .Rana Mukherjee: Absolutely! It was a very overwhelming experience in Calcutta. The Calcutta Bar is divided amongst the barristers and the non-barristers. I was one of the ‘wannabes’ there in the sense that I was with the barristers but a non-barrister. I learnt a lot from the Calcutta Bar..The Calcutta High Court is an old chartered High Court. So, the basic ingrained sense of discipline, which was there at least in the 80s, and the work ethos helped me learn and understand how to approach a matter, how to deal with clients and how to handle courts. I owe a lot to the Calcutta High Court Bar..Bar & Bench: Was this your first application for the gown? How do you feel?.Rana Mukherjee: Yes. It was my first application. I had applied in the hope that they would consider. It went through and I am very happy..Bar & Bench: Do you agree with the current procedure being followed for designation of Senior Advocates?.Rana Mukherjee: It is a bit too early for me to react. But I will say that they could consider having the old system in which they invite the advocate and seek his consent for designation. I feel that that system is slightly better because if we have this application system and if an application is rejected, the concerned advocate would feel a bit low. That might affect his performance in court for at least a month or maybe more. So “being called upon by the court” system should come back..Bar & Bench: Were you an AoR? What are your thoughts on the AoR system?.Rana Mukherjee: I was not an AoR. However, I think the AoR system is a perfectly good system by which the court can regulate the activities of a lawyer. Otherwise things might go haywire. You need the kind of core practitioners which is ensured by the AoR system..It makes sure that there is a semblance of control over the cases which come up, because at the Supreme Court there are cases from across the length and breadth of the country. Without the AoR system, almost every advocate would come and file vakalatnama and then the Registry of the Supreme Court will find it difficult to handle and regulate cases..Bar & Bench: Why did you chose to remain a pure arguing counsel rather than taking the AoR exam?.Rana Mukherjee: I always believed that I would be a [Senior] Counsel at some point of time. However, as a junior counsel, I worked almost like an AoR, in that people used to approach me and I used to give cases to AoRs who then used to come back to me. But I never thought of taking the exam. It was a conscious decision to stick to the role of an arguing counsel in the hope that I will step into Senior gown someday; and now I feel that it was the right decision..Bar & Bench: Your opinion on how the Supreme Court is handling the NJAC – Collegium issue?.Rana Mukherjee: I feel that the time schedule which they have set for the hearing is absolutely perfect. Like the American courts, we need a broad time limit set for each counsel to finish their arguments. We cannot have the same arguments being repeated ad nauseum by every counsel. I think, to this extent, the Court is absolutely correct in the NJAC hearing..Bar & Bench: It is on ad hoc basis that the court fixes such time limits. There are no written norms or Rules in this regard. .Rana Mukherjee: In cases where there is one legal issue and 50 tagged cases, 50 Senior Advocates or advocates will try to pitch in their points. Then, things get out of control. The Court is trying to fix time limit for lawyers in many cases now. Most of the judges are hard pressed for time and they are trying to cut down on the time given to advocates for arguing..Bar & Bench: The NJAC Bench is the first Constitution Bench under CJI Dattu. Is the Court doing justice to its role as a Constitutional court?.Rana Mukherjee: There was a regular Constitution bench during CJI Kapadia’s time and it continued for a very long time. That Bench had 5 judges in different combinations. In fact, at a point of time, there were two Constitution Benches functioning. Quite a few cases involving Constitutional issues were disposed of then. A system like that can be developed. After all, the Supreme Court is, first and foremost, a Constitutional court. It is we advocates who have reduced it to being a court of all weather. So there should be a permanent Constitution Bench. They can change the composition of the Bench after say every ten cases..Bar & Bench: There were quite a few cases against judges which were never entertained by the Supreme Court. Your thoughts..Rana Mukherjee: I don’t think that the Supreme Court as a matter of principle has taken a decision not to entertain cases against judges. There are cases which have been looked into. Justice Soumitra Sen’s case, Justice V Ramaswami’s case and the recent case against Madhya Pradesh High Court judge are examples of such cases..Bar & Bench: Any changes that you would like to see in the Supreme Court?.Rana Mukherjee: I am told that the system of filing, though streamlined, needs more finesse. I feel that an untrained legal hand at the Registry joining issue with a lawyer on how a matter is to be drafted etc. is slightly demeaning to the lawyers themselves..The Registry should be told that, “This is the line, you don’t even see if the papers are in order, let it be. It is for the court to decide.” I would not ever like to hear someone in the Registry telling a lawyer what to do and what not to on the legal side. I think it is very demeaning to the profession. I think this has to be looked into by the Supreme Court and rectified very fast. I have heard people complaining about Registry officials not behaving well even with juniors on non-issues..Also, this insistence upon the AoR being present everywhere should be done away with. An AoR cannot be omnipresent. He has to be in court, he is also expected to be in the Registry for numbering of cases and he is also expected to go and brief seniors. It becomes a herculean task for the AoR. That is why though there are many advocates pining to be AoRs, the good lot is trying to opt out..Bar & Bench: Do you agree with this 365 day work policy?.Rana Mukherjee: No. It is impossible. I have had this argument with people from outside the profession. Equate the number of holidays with the Central government service; but the system has to close down for holidays. Judges and lawyers actually work 7 days a week..And I have only one thing to tell the non-lawyers who blame the judiciary and the legal fraternity. We are very thankful that we have errant doctors, errant engineers, errant pilots, etc. in the society because they help our profession to survive. Everybody pines for a perfect society but it is only because of them that we survive. So, therefore, these complaints from outside the profession with regard to the profession are absolutely unwarranted. They don’t work in the system and they should not complain about the system..Working 365 days will be a disaster for the judicial system. Judges and lawyers are not Automatons. We deserve a little free time..Bar & Bench: Do you agree with the unwritten norm of State quota for Supreme Court judges which the Collegium used to follow? Should not the consideration for Supreme Court judgeship be merit alone?.Rana Mukherjee: Yes! I think Supreme Court judgeship has to be based on merit. If one State has six good judges who deserve to be elevated to the Supreme Court, they should be. If they are good, it will eventually be good for the society. The system which necessitates that one State should be represented by two judges or three judges, does not make sense. Especially in a huge country like ours, we need good people to man the Supreme Court..Bar & Bench: How do you spend your free time?.Rana Mukherjee: I do a lot of travelling, I read books and listen to music and I cook. Sunday mornings are spent in cooking. That is one thing I tell every junior – “When you want to de-stress, please cook.”

“Judges and lawyers are not automatons – Senior counsel Rana Mukherjee

Related Stories